Here are three email addresses where you can respectfully express your thoughts and demands for a total regime change for UCLA athletics:

UC President, Mark G. Yudof: president@ucop.edu;
Regent, George Kieffer: gkieffer@manatt.com;
Regent, Bruce Hallett: bhallet@miramarvp.com.

Explanation on why they are strategic targets for email actions provided below. - BN Eds.

We now know that Chianti Dan is not going to terminate RN before the joke of the Pac 12 Conference game.

UCLA has become a national joke in both of its revenue generating sports.  Ample evidence of this can be found in the written and spoken word during and immediately after UCLA's recent football and basketball games.  UCLA's brand and its goodwill (i.e., positive public feelings about the university and its athletic programs) are being eroded on a daily basis.

Many Bruins have written or spoken to UCLA Chancellor Gene Block about the state of UCLA athletics.  It does not appear that Chancellor Block has the desire or the will to relieve Dan Guerrero from his duties before Mr. Guerrero does more damage to UCLA's brand and reputation.  I would think that the UCLA brand is the most valuable intellectual property of the University of California system.  As such, it is now time to take our crusade to those who are above Chancellor Block before it is too late.

According to Wikipedia (I know, questionable source), Chancellor Block reports to UC President, Mark G. Yudof.  As such, I would assume that President Yudof is Chancellor Block's direct supervisor.  President Yudof's e-mail address is president@ucop.edu.

The Regents of the University of California make up the governing board of the University of California.  It is unclear what if any powers the Regents have over the Chancellor, or if taking our crusade to them would help.  In reporting on the UC leadership, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges has reported about "significant problems in governance, leadership and decision making," with much "confusion about the roles and responsibilities of the university president, the regents and the 10 campus chancellors with no clear lines of authority and boundaries.  LOL.  Sounds like the Morgan Center.  Notwithstanding the above, putting pressure on the Regents certainly couldn't hurt.  See the attached link for a list of the Regents.

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. GO BRUINS. - BN Ed.

Based on the attached link to the NCAA's Postseason handbook (PDF), I think UCLA goes to a bowl no matter what happens tomorrow and next Friday. Check out page 18, “Selection Scenarios,” number 2, which states:

“A conference team that is 6-6 and plays in a conference championship game and loses to finish with a record of 6-7 may apply for a waiver to allow that team to be considered for a postseason bowl. Conditions that will be considered in such a waiver include whether or not all other conference teams under consideration have 6-6 records and there are not a sufficient number of eligible teams to meet the conference’s bowl commitments.”

The Pac 12 has 7 bowl tie ins. Seven bowl eligible teams. WSU, OSU, Zona, Colorado, and U$C* cannot get bowl eligible. So I would think that they would let UCLA go before choosing a non-Pac 12 team instead of UCLA. It is not absolute though, because the rule says that this scenario is a “condition that will be considered.”  It doesn't talk about what other conditions will be considered but the inclusion of this one leads me to believe that it would be the primary consideration.  Plus, no Pac 12 bowl game would prefer, say, a 6-6 Ball State team, a 6-6 Eastern Michigan team, or another similarly situated 6-6 team to the Bruins, simply because economics would seem to dictate that the game would generate more revenue with UCLA in it.

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. GO BRUINS - BN Eds.

This post was originally a reply in the thought-provoking thread about our AD's decision to schedule UCLA against Texas at the new Cowboy Stadium in Arlington, Texas, in a 2014 season where we are already slated to play Virginia at Virginia.

After I typed the lengthy reply, I realized it should probably be in a stand alone post.

I have posted before about the nature of UCLA's scheduling and the scheduling of the Pac 12 in general.  I have always been proud of the fact that UCLA has never scheduled a non-Division 1A (i.e., non-FBS) opponent.  That does not mean, however, that The Morgan Center should go out and load up our schedule with tough OOC games like they are doing in 2014.

I used to ridicule the SEC for its cream puff scheduling and the seemingly superior nature of UCLA and, in general, the old Pac 10, to schedule tough OOC opponents versus the SEC's nature to schedule cream puffs.

Well, my thoughts on the matter have changed after living in Florida for 15 years and seeing how the SEC works.  Those SEC teams (who only play an 8 conference game schedule) typically go 3-0 at home against those cream puffs, and maybe have one tough OOC game.

Then the good teams do well in conference and end up in a New Year's Day bowl game or better.  The bad teams can go 3-5 or 2-6 in conference, end up 6-6 and still go to a bowl game.  Follow me after the jump for an analysis of 3 such teams and their scheduling in the 2011 season.

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. Fun read. - BN Eds.

This post is somewhat of an experiment.  As I posted earlier in the week, and was my mildly chided by some frontpagers for doing so, I was at a concert last night.  It started at 8 p.m. E.S.T.  I left the house at 7:30 E.S.T., the same time as the UCLA kickoff.

Before the game, I decided to record the game and watch after the fact.  Thus, I left my smartphone at home so that I could simply enjoy the concert and then (hopefully) enjoy the game.  No way to check for updates on the game.  No way to check BruinsNation.  This probably couldn't happen if I lived in SoCal but it wasn't a problem in Central Florida.  I got home and began watching at 1 a.m. E.S.T. (before the time change), finished watching the game by 3:00 a.m. E.S.T. (hooray for fastforwarding through commercials, timetime, and challenge delays), and went to bed.  I took about 6 pages of handwritten notes during the game (thoughts I otherwise would have posted on BN).

I just woke up and I had my wife log me on to to Bruins Nation and set up this fanshot page. As such, I have not seen ANY comments about the game from BNers, the media, or otherwise.  As a matter of fact, as I type this I don't know who won the LSU Alabama game.  The last ticker on the UCLA game said it was 6-6 with about 5 minutes to play.  Maybe I should have turned down the sound from the game to even further purify my game experience, but I can't bring myself to do that.  I love the sounds of the game.

Circumstances dictated this experiment but I took the opportunity to do it to see if my own personal thoughts stood out markedly from those in this community or if I was simply following along with the general undercurrent of the commnity.  I originally thought about simply listing my handwritten comments in chronological order but decided instead to summarize my thoughts in a more general fashion.

Follow me after the jump for my thoughts on UCLA /ASU . . .

Continue reading this post »

Here are some additional photos (following bd's excellent actions shots already posted earlier today) with some commentaries from yesterday in Tampa. Enjoy!

Welcome to Tampa! (via jakefromorlando)

Continue reading this post »

Well, I just bought my ticket for tomorrow night's game!  YES!!!!

I am driving from Orlando to Tampa tomorrow afternoon for the UCLA v. Michigan State and Florida v. UCSB (Session 2) games.  I am not attending either of the Session 1 games (West Virginia v. Clemson and Kentucky v. Princeton).  I am playing Saturday by ear.  If UCLA is fortunate enough to win, I plan to try to buy tickets from disgruntled Michigan State fans immediately after the Thursday game.

To my knowledge, no other BNers are going to Tampa.  If I am mistaken, and you will be there, please respond to this post and we can try to meet up for a beer before the games.

I will try to post thoughts about the game experience, atmosphere, fans, etc. during the game thread.  I am also bringing my wife's DSLR camera with a few different lenses (the St. Pete Times Forum has a liberal camera policy) and will try to post some pics over the weekend.  Hopefully they are "happy" pictures and not "sad" pictures.

Can't wait for tomorrow!  GOOOOOO BRUINS!

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

This post is a follow up to Nestor's "Inside UCLA's Ugly Numbers" frontpage post after the meltdown in Seattle.  Several posters threw up some very telling statistics in the thread following that post.  This post consolidates some of those numbers and adds a few more as well.  

A big thanks to everyone who took the time to research these numbers to contribute to the assessment of the UCLA football program that we all love, but are deeply concerned about that this point in time.

1. 25 years since UCLA last won a Rose Bowl.

2. 13 years since UCLA last appeared in a Rose Bowl.

3. UCLA is now averaging 5.03 yards/pass attempt this season. That is 119th out of 120.

4. 51-235 = The total amount of points scored and allowed by UCLA in 6 games following a bye week under Rick Neuheisel.

Continue reading this post »

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

I saw lots of posts this weekend blaming CTS for leaving the cupboard bare, and a lot of posts condemning this view because that was 2007 and this is 2010.  I also saw lots of posts stating that UCLA fans have been using the "we are young" excuse for 3 years, and a bevy of other posters opining that this is no longer a valid excuse.  I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree that these are no longer valid excuses. 

This team is still very young and inexperienced.  Combine that with our usual plethora of injuries (which hurt even more in light of how thin the program was after 2007), a couple of suspensions (does this show discipline or a lack thereof???), and a tougher than usual PAC 10, and it is not unforeseeable that the Bruins would be where they are this season.  I did a little research this morning, looked back at our roster last season, looked back at our spring depth chart, looked at the players that were playing yesterday/who will be playing going forward, and the changes are startling, especially on D.

Continue reading this post »

Some have raised issues about perceived negativity regarding what I believe to be fair criticisms leveled at our beloved Bruins, both after the WSU game and going back a few weeks to Stanford.  IMHO, there is a big difference about constructively criticizing performance versus hating on coaches or players.

I don't think that there is one person who contributes to this forum that isn't happy or proud to be a Bruin.

I don’t think that there is one person here who isn't happy that UCLA showed some grit and pulled out a win against WSU yesterday.

I don’t think there is one person here who is ashamed of or non-supportive of our players.

That having been said, there is no reason that we, as fans and supporters of the UCLA football team, cannot provide insightful, reasoned, and critical commentary about certain shortcomings we are seeing on the field.

I support Coach Bullough (called great games against UH and UT), but that does not mean I can be blind to the game he called yesterday.

I support Taylor Embree (and he came through with a big 2 point conversion yesterday) but he has dropped two TD passes this season because he tried to trap the ball against his chest instead of extending his arms and turning palms outward to catch the ball. Basic fundamentals.

I support Sheldon Price (much improved this season) but I wish he would stop with the celebrations after every defended pass especially when the team is getting its collective butt kicked, like in the Stanford game.

I support the team but don’t like the pass interferences and especially the personal fouls.

Now, many of  you may have seen some of Nestor’s game posts, but you need to understand that it is the famous “Nestor reverse mojo.” Posters who have frequented this forum understand that.  New posters need to understand that and take it with a grain of salt. Same with the newly created “cleansing” threads, where people humorously (and sometimes outrageously) throw out worst case scenarios a day or two before the game.

As far as other “drive by” trolls during the game, the mods on this board addressed that issue a few weeks ago and posted new rules about conduct during game threads, the most important of which was no personal attacks on the players or coaches.

The difference between a personal attack and constructive criticism is as follows:

"Player effing sucks at blocking and must be pulled immediately. Why did CRN give him a scholie?"

vs.

"Player should have made that block. CRN might consider subbing him out for another player."

This forum has always been about addressing the positives and the negatives and not wearing rose colored glasses. Most here picked to win between 5 and 7 games this year. A roller coaster ride with a lot of young talent. I think most would have thought we would be right about where we are right now, 3-2, but probably with the wins and losses spread out among different teams (i.e., beat KSU and lose to UT). We appear to be on track for 5 to 7 wins (although we could conceivably win all of our remaining games or lose all of our remaining games given the unpredictable nature of our team). But that doesn’t mean that we cannot wish, hope, and dream for more.

And when we see deficiencies that trend against those wishes, hopes, and dreams, we should be able to voice them in a constructive fashion in this forum. I don’t think that that is being a “Debbie Downer," a troll, or otherwise not being a Bruin supporter.

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

And the Bruins' worst home loss ever at the Rose Bowl.

I am basing this only on shutouts at home (i.e., under my analysis, a 35-0 loss is "worse" than 41-3 because I am only considering shutouts).

That having been said, although the Bruins have been shut out at home 16 times since 1941 (only 3 times since 1963), this was the worst loss since UCLA lost to Washington, 41-0, in 1941.

Although I am not ready to give up on this team yet, and the coaches in particular, this loss is beyond Dorrellian, who was never shutout at the Rose Bowl.  Bob Toledo was shut out once at home, 17-0 to Cal, in 1999 and Donahue was shut out twice in 1992 and 1994, 20-0 to ASU and 21-0 to WSU, respectively.

In particular, despite the talent upgrade, this team has regressed in so many ways since November, 2009.  As usual, I have some points to make (solely based on my fuzzy, buzzed memory from last night while also sucking at poker):

(1) UCLA never sacked Luck.   As a matter of fact, the Bruins never appeared to get within spitting distance of him.  Whether this is a lack of talent and experience up front or Coach B's schemes is an open question to me.  It may be both.  UCLA really misses Brian Price but the defense even had issues with him last season.

(2) No adjustments against Luck's rush. When Luck did feel some pressure, he ran on UCLA like no "pro style QB" has ever run on the Bruins IMHO.  The box score says he averaged almost 10 yards a carry and was Stanford's leading rusher.  Simply unacceptable for a pro style QB.  No adjustments were made to "shadow" the QB to prevent such runs.

(3) Inexcusable false start penalties killing drives.  This has been a problem for UCLA for as long as I can remember, and shouldn't be happening with 5 senior starters, even if most were tabbed as backups before the injury bug hit.

Continue reading this post »

I watched the game with friends so I didn't post a lick here yesterday and haven't read any posts or stories about the game yet.  I wanted to do my "brain dump" before I got other perspectives.  Here it is . . .

Notwithstanding the "revolver" look, not much appears to have changed from last year in this game:

Ineffectiveness in the the red zone: The Bruins continue to have problems getting seven instead of three.

Giving up big plays on the ground: Thomas reminded me of Jahvid Best in the Cal game last year.  A handful of huge plays accounting for much of the damage against UCLA.  I give the Bruins a pass on the last, meaningless TD as they were looking to stop the first down.

Bad tackling: Hopefully this will improve.

Drive killing penalties: Way too many false starts.  I specifically remember 2 in the 1st quarter that changed 2nd and 6 to 2nd and 11, effectively nullifying momentum on good first down plays.  Both possessions results in punts.

Dropped Passes: Even the sure handed guys, Embree and Marvray, dropped some easy balls (although Marvray's TD catch was spectacular).

Not stretching the field: Prince didn't throw the ball downfield once until the Harkey and Marvray plays at the end of the game.  Whether that is because he showed some rust or by design, the Bruins need to stretch the field.

Conservative defense: Didn't see too many blitzes and it didn't seem like the Bruins were stacking the box on obvious run plays to force Coffman to beat them.

QB play: Prince was inconsistent in his throws, which is not surprising given his limited practice.  That should improve as the season goes forward.  More troubling to me is that, given the QB's rushing role in the revolver formation, Prince wants to take off and run on passing plays before going through his progressions.

Not taking advantage of mismatches:  Big, tall UCLA receivers vs. short KSU DBs.  Yet the Bruins never went deep, threw a fade route, or any other pass (with the exception of quick slants) where the Bruins could exploit their size.

I noticed a few other things that, while not necessarily being consistent with our play last year, I have some thoughts about after the jump:

Continue reading this post »